[Krusty]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0805/p01s02-ussc.html

[mo]

Originally posted by Krusty:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0805/p01s02-ussc.html

Well, I was hoping no one would bring this up. ... but yes, it slipped by with only 70 percent of the vote.

[Kitschy]

This is what happens when actual US citizens are allowed to decide issues rather than activist judges. When activist judges are allowed to make laws, the majority of US citizens are undermined. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of states vote the same way.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
This is what happens when actual US citizens are allowed to decide issues rather than activist judges. When activist judges are allowed to make laws, the majority of US citizens are undermined. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of states vote the same way.

I wonder how many of our rights would be taken away if they were put up to a majority vote.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
This is what happens when actual US citizens are allowed to decide issues rather than activist judges. When activist judges are allowed to make laws, the majority of US citizens are undermined. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of states vote the same way.

"Activist judges." One of King George's favorite statements. All judges are activists; they all interpret the law! That's what they're there for! Dubya loves to use that term, when it suits him politically.

[OldManMac]

This isn't over, by a long shot! Fortunately, a few people see the truth!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KarlG:
This isn't over, by a long shot! Fortunately, a few people see the truth!

That's Washington state.. not Missouri.

[dcolton]

Not necessarily cheer...but a favorable response to a vote for a stronger america,

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by KarlG:
This isn't over, by a long shot! Fortunately, a few people see the truth!

and it'll never float when it reaches the US Supreme Court.

[Zimphire]

I've always said Leftists want to take all the power away from states they can.

It was never meant to be that way. That is why we have separate states.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
and it'll never float when it reaches the US Supreme Court.

We'll see. Someday, enough people will get over their homphobia to make it happen. Gays have been with us since the dawn of man (there were even several gay popes), and they haven't converted us yet, and they haven't taken the institution of marriage down yet, and they still represent only a small minority of the population (yet so many needlessly fear them), and on and on and on. Right will prevail someday.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That's Washington state.. not Missouri.

I'm quite well aware of which state it is. I've lived in America for the last 50 of my 57 years. I suppose I could have started another thread, but, as the issue is the same.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I've always said Leftists want to take all the power away from states they can.

It was never meant to be that way. That is why we have separate states.

That's a convenient thing for you to say, when you're opposed to the issue. Rights in America should apply to everyone.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KarlG:
That's a convenient thing for you to say, when you're opposed to the issue.

Actually I am ALL for giving gays the same rights as married people. I however think the federal government needs to stay out of it and leave it up to separate states. Like it's SUPPOSED to be.

Rights in America should apply to everyone.

Hey, I am not allowed to marry a man either. So it does.

They don't want EQUAL rights. They want rights ADDED.

But even then I am for them ADDING rights.

They need to find another word to call it though, Marriage is already taken.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by KarlG:
We'll see. Someday, enough people will get over their homphobia to make it happen. Gays have been with us since the dawn of man (there were even several gay popes), and they haven't converted us yet, and they haven't taken the institution of marriage down yet, and they still represent only a small minority of the population (yet so many needlessly fear them), and on and on and on. Right will prevail someday.

It's not fear, it's simply not what marriage is. Marriages are marriages, civil unions are civil unions.

Honestly, if I can't marry my two lovers (which would essentially make their part of the union a "gay marriage"), why should a same-sex couple be able to marry? ALL gov't recognized unions between consenting adults should be "civil unions". Since marriage is predominantly a religious custom, why should religion be that engrained in gov't to begin with? All these liberals want seperation of Church and State, but at the same time want a federal mandate on something that's mostly a religious custom... odd.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It's not fear, it's simply not what marriage is. Marriages are marriages, civil unions are civil unions.

Honestly, if I can't marry my two lovers (which would essentially make their part of the union a "gay marriage"), why should a same-sex couple be able to marry? ALL gov't recognized unions between consenting adults should be "civil unions". Since marriage is predominantly a religious custom, why should religion be that engrained in gov't to begin with? All these liberals want seperation of Church and State, but at the same time want a federal mandate on something that's mostly a religious custom... odd.

it's about trying to force people into accepting the normality of it all.

Just wont happen.

You can give equal rights, but you cannot make people accept it as an equal.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
it's about trying to force people into accepting the normality of it all.

Just wont happen.

You can give equal rights, but you cannot make people accept it as an equal.

"Nomality" is rather subjective at times... I mean, there are social norms and then there are individual norms. We can't expect that everyone (or even a majority) will espouse everything we each consider normal. What we CAN do is allow for a tolerance of each person's expression without forcing each individual's preferences down everyone's throats. That's where I feel civil unions come into play, it allows for such a union without forcibly changing a universal paradigm by a fractional minority. THAT is the pure nature of tolerance, IMO.

[Face Ache]

.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Actually I am ALL for giving gays the same rights as married people. I however think the federal government needs to stay out of it and leave it up to separate states. Like it's SUPPOSED to be. [/B]

You said earlier that leftists want to take away state's rights. And yet it's Bush who wants a Federal Marriage Amendment. How do you reconcile that?

It seems to me that social conservatives are in favor of state's rights whenever those states are limiting individual's rights, and against state's rights when the states want to increase individual rights. I'd like to see a liberal state's rights approach - they can provide as many increased liberties as they want, such as gay marriage, drugs legal, or whatever, but they can't limit rights below some minimum.

[Kitschy]

Isn't "majority rules" the way this country works? I mean, we vote and whichever issue gets the most votes wins.

What isn't fair about that?

Personally, I don't think the framers of the constitution would have ever thought that the federal or state government would be ruling on whether or not men could "marry" other men and women could "marry" other women. Interesting world we live in.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Isn't "majority rules" the way this country works? I mean, we vote and whichever issue gets the most votes wins.

Sorry to be rude, but you really don't understand our system of gov't if that's the way you think it works. We've become more democratic through the years, with the direct election of the president and the senate, for example, but the founders were not all that interested in democracy, they were interested in individual rights and in limiting the power of gov't.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You said earlier that leftists want to take away state's rights. And yet it's Bush who wants a Federal Marriage Amendment. How do you reconcile that?

Actually Bush did say that he wanted the States to decide. This is him playing the old "Ask for more when you want less" game.

He is just playing his cards. I don't think he actually expected there to be a Federal Amendment against it.

You always ask for more than what you want so you'll have more negotiating space.

Just ask Lawyers.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Personally, I don't think the framers of the constitution would have ever thought that the federal or state government would be ruling on whether or not men could "marry" other men and women could "marry" other women. Interesting world we live in.

And you are right. If anyone at the time would have said that, they would have been laughed at and put into a mental institution.

If our forefathers had the ability to see into the future and see how badly society has degraded to.. I am betting we would have seen a different outcome.

[idjeff]

You know what? I think I want to have a second wife.

Do you think that I, or anyone else for that matter, should be able to have a second wife? I mean, why shouldn't I be able to have holy matrimony with two women as long as we're redefining marriage?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Actually Bush did say that he wanted the States to decide. This is him playing the old "Ask for more when you want less" game.

He is just playing his cards. I don't think he actually expected there to be a Federal Amendment against it.

You always ask for more than what you want so you'll have more negotiating space.

Just ask Lawyers. [/B]

You said that leftists want to take away state's rights. But no leftist I'm aware of wants a constitutional amendment promoting gay marriage, it's "rightists" in the white house and senate who supported and voted for a constitutional amendment on the issue. But now you say they didn't really mean it. Hmmmm...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And you are right. If anyone at the time would have said that, they would have been laughed at and put into a mental institution.

If our forefathers had the ability to see into the future and see how badly society has degraded to.. I am betting we would have seen a different outcome.

Maybe. But in a lot of ways we've gotten a lot better too, as a result of our system of government.

[Face Ache]

.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You said that leftists want to take away state's rights. But no leftist I'm aware of wants a constitutional amendment promoting gay marriage, it's "rightists" in the white house and senate who supported and voted for a constitutional amendment on the issue. But now you say they didn't really mean it. Hmmmm...

Erm Bush wanted it to be handled on a state by state basis.

But the left wanted it to be ok'd on a national level. They don't want any state to say "No sorry, you marriage isn't valid in this state" They want the gov on a national level to be able to override that on a state level.

So Bush played the same game by trying to get a amendment to stop such a thing from happening. THAT is what I was referring to when I said "playing the field"

Had the left not tried to push it on a national level, Bush would have STILL been saying "Leave it up to each state"

Which is how it should be.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by idjeff:
You know what? I think I want to have a second wife.

Do you think that I, or anyone else for that matter, should be able to have a second wife? I mean, why shouldn't I be able to have holy matrimony with two women as long as we're redefining marriage?

I don't have a problem with that.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by idjeff:
You know what? I think I want to have a second wife.

Do you think that I, or anyone else for that matter, should be able to have a second wife? I mean, why shouldn't I be able to have holy matrimony with two women as long as we're redefining marriage?

Guess what -- YOU CAN !!! Of course, it won't be legally recognized by the government, but if you belong to a church that believes that, they can define "marriage" however they like. Note your use of "holy" matrimony ... the government is not, and should not, be involved in defining what is and is not "holy". If your religious beliefs don't allow for multiple wives or gay marriage, then by all means don't do that.

Originally posted by Face Ache:
What isn't fair is wedge politics, causing unnecessary rifts in society to lever votes.

Face Ache hits the nail on the head. Many gays have "married" (though without legal recognition), and will continue to do so regardless of its legal status. Wasting time by proposing this ban now is nothing but another scare tactic to split people and garner votes (or perhaps voting apathy) from a few more people -- sort of "Do you support Bush ?? Or are you a queer-loving, terrorist supporter ?"

[ebuddy]

What isn't fair is wedge politics, causing unnecessary rifts in society to lever votes.

You're right, he did nail it on the head. There are many who use this subject to take votes away from one man who opposes same-sex marriage, for another who opposes same-sex marriage. I wonder if homosexuals realize how badly they're being exploited on this one. I find it ironic that someone would be willing to vote in regards to a "right to marry" when there are about 15 other key points to be considered these days including the state of our economy post 9/11, terrorism, taxes, medical care, etc...Apparently, someone who may be thought to support homosexual marriage also happens to fall right in line with all the other key voting points? Except, the other candidate does not support gay marriage either. What to do? Vote for him anyway!! Because,it's... IT'S STILL BUSH'S FAULT! Interesting how no new rights were attained under a more accepting and open administration 5 years ago.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by idjeff:
You know what? I think I want to have a second wife.

Do you think that I, or anyone else for that matter, should be able to have a second wife? I mean, why shouldn't I be able to have holy matrimony with two women as long as we're redefining marriage?

If you want a second wife, good luck! One's about all I can handle...


edit: in all seriousness, nobody is proposing to redefine the definition of holy anything. They are proposing to give the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. You (and your religion) are free to define holy matrimony however you want...

[mo]

One of the interesting things about the vote here in Missouri was that we already have a law against same-sex marriages, which was put into place a couple of years ago. Now we have a constitutional amendment against it. So it's twice as illegal as it was before. Which is to say, still illegal.

Really, there's some serious flogging of this issue going on in my state, despite the absence of any great number of gay people actually attempting to get married, as far as anybody can tell. In the meantime, we can't agree on how to spread the education budget around our different school districts or keep Medicaid afloat or repair our highways (among the worst in the nation). But we're really battening down the hatches against same-sex marriage.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Right will prevail someday.

I'd say it already has...in Missouri at least.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
If you want a second wife, good luck! One's about all I can handle...


edit: in all seriousness, nobody is proposing to redefine the definition of holy anything. They are proposing to give the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. You (and your religion) are free to define holy matrimony however you want...

and state sanctioned civil unions do that very thing.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
and state sanctioned civil unions do that very thing.

I would agree, except for the fact that the Conservatives who want to turn this into a "states rights" issue want traditional marriages from any state to be honored by all states, like they are now, while giving individual states the right to not honor same-sex civil unions from another state. That's the whole idea of the federal DOMA act and the proposed constitutional amendment, right? to not "force" states to honor same-sex unions from other states?

So, civil unions do not do the same thing, because they don't give legal rights that are "portable", for lack of a better term. And if they do give exactly the same rights as covol marriage, including the portability issue, then calling them "civil unions" is purely a matter of semantics, right?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Erm Bush wanted it to be handled on a state by state basis.

But the left wanted it to be ok'd on a national level. They don't want any state to say "No sorry, you marriage isn't valid in this state" They want the gov on a national level to be able to override that on a state level.

So Bush played the same game by trying to get a amendment to stop such a thing from happening. THAT is what I was referring to when I said "playing the field"

Had the left not tried to push it on a national level, Bush would have STILL been saying "Leave it up to each state"

Which is how it should be.

No one has pushed for a US constitutional amendment or any other federal law promoting gay marriage. What I think you're talking about is the long-held tradition that states recognized other states' marriages. That's been around forever, and wasn't pushed by the "left." In fact, we currently have a federal law saying that states don't have to recognize other states' gay marriages. But even if that law was never enacted, no state would have to allow gays to get married in their state.

The fact remains that you said the left wants to take away states' rights on this issue, when in fact it's the right that wanted to do so. I know of no proposal of any kind by a liberal or Democrat that would take away any states' rights on this issue, and either do you. Bush at one time may have believed it should be left up to the states, but not any more.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
I would agree, except for the fact that the Conservatives who want to turn this into a "states rights" issue want traditional marriages from any state to be honored by all states, like they are now, while giving individual states the right to not honor same-sex civil unions from another state. That's the whole idea of the federal DOMA act and the proposed constitutional amendment, right? to not "force" states to honor same-sex unions from other states?

So, civil unions do not do the same thing, because they don't give legal rights that are "portable", for lack of a better term. And if they do give exactly the same rights as covol marriage, including the portability issue, then calling them "civil unions" is purely a matter of semantics, right?

No, because marriage is a religious practice which is defined as the joining of a man and a woman. Or, do you and others simply want to force other people to recognize a particular thing as "normal", despite the fact that the vast majority don't feel that way? Hell, *I* live in a societally abnormal domestic partnership, but I'm not trying to get everyone to recognize it as a marriage. I wouldn't mind establishing a civil union for legal purposes, but I'm not wanting to change an entire convention just to allow for my extreme minority view. That's just nuts.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if Mass. makes gay marriage legal, but don't tell me that the people in TN have to recognize it. We're seperate states for a reason, because the things the constituency wants in one state, may not be wanted in another.

[mo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, because marriage is a religious practice which is defined as the joining of a man and a woman. (snip)

How is it possible, then, that I am legally married (in Missouri, a state that is now really, really safe from gay marriage) without the benefit of any religious ceremony or mention of religion of any kind? It was just a civil procedure. ... clerk, judge, witnesses.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by mo:
How is it possible, then, that I am legally married (in Missouri, a state that is now really, really safe from gay marriage) without the benefit of any religious ceremony or mention of religion of any kind? It was just a civil procedure. ... clerk, judge, witnesses.

Because the gov't got involved wtih something it shouldn't have a long time ago. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[mo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Because the gov't got involved wtih something it shouldn't have a long time ago. Two wrongs don't make a right.

So a marriage shouldn't have any legal status? Only a religious one?

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by mo:
So a marriage shouldn't have any legal status? Only a religious one?

Yep. Marriages = religious, civil unions = legal.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yep. Marriages = religious, civil unions = legal.

Sounds good to me.

BG

[mo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yep. Marriages = religious, civil unions = legal.

So if you take away all of the legal rights automatically conferred to married couples -- including the tax code stuff, which gets voluminous, but also more basic things (like the right to make medical decisions if I'm in a coma, for instance) -- any two people would have to create a civil union in order to maintain all of those rights, correct?

Mind you, I'm not really objecting to what you're saying.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, because marriage is a religious practice which is defined as the joining of a man and a woman. Or, do you and others simply want to force other people to recognize a particular thing as "normal", despite the fact that the vast majority don't feel that way? Hell, *I* live in a societally abnormal domestic partnership, but I'm not trying to get everyone to recognize it as a marriage. I wouldn't mind establishing a civil union for legal purposes, but I'm not wanting to change an entire convention just to allow for my extreme minority view. That's just nuts.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if Mass. makes gay marriage legal, but don't tell me that the people in TN have to recognize it. We're seperate states for a reason, because the things the constituency wants in one state, may not be wanted in another.

I've read too many discussions here to go into a discussion of what's "normal". That's just asking for twenty posts from Zimphere.

(Yes, I guess I'm a member of the Fan Club now...)

However, I think its important that if same-sex [civil unions or marriage or whatever] are allowed in one state, that it be binding in all the other states. That's the status that is currently afforded to traditional marriage, and that's the standard we have to hold same-sex unions to to make them equal. To do anything less would make same-sex unions less equal than traditional marriages. I previously held your opinion, but after some time thinking about it this is the opinion I now hold.

I don't have much time to talk about it right now, but perhaps one of the legal eagles here could comment on this states rights thing, and how much leeway states have to not recognize contracts or unions made by another state. I think this is the crux of the matter, and people who talk about "states rights" are really talking about one state's rights to deny benefits that another state offers...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Isn't "majority rules" the way this country works? I mean, we vote and whichever issue gets the most votes wins.

What isn't fair about that?

Actually, if you'll bother to go back and learn your own politics, you will find that exactly that does NOT happen automatically.

Majority rule has its Constitutional limits at violating minorities' civil/human rights. That is precisely what made your REPUBLIC's (not "democracy's") Constitution the beacon of freedom until improved upon by Germany (in 1949, with much help from the US), and further by South Africa.

The point is that, in a pure democracy, there is no safeguard against, say, killing all blacks, or homos, or Jews, or Muslims, or rich white kids who use Macs - or against deporting them, discriminating against them, or otherwise denying them basic civil liberties - provided the majority agrees. Our constitutions guarantee that, at least legally, all minorities are accorded the same rights, privileges, and duties (religious exemptions from duties notwithstanding) as the ruling majority.

You may remember that both Hitler's election and the subsequent rise in anti-Jewish discrimination in Germany initially happened with majority support.

(Which is why checks and safeguards were imported from the US constitution, and augmented, after the war.)

This is why denying gays marriage and the associated privileges has been ruled unconstitutional - thankfully, it has NOTHING to do with majority approval.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yep. Marriages = religious, civil unions = legal.

Freaky:

I agree with you, if a name-change is really what it takes to get it by the ignorant masses.

Of course, in that case, the government has absolutely no business whatsoever getting involved in, let alone regulating, "marriage".

And they can also impossibly deny gays the right to a civil union.

And somehow, I seriously doubt that such a situation (both counts) is in the interest of the religious string-pullers in the US administration.

-s*

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I agree with you, if a name-change is really what it takes to get it by the ignorant masses.

It's not a name change. It's keeping things the same, and adding a new name for a new type of union.

And there is nothing ignorant about it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

It's not a name change. It's keeping things the same, and adding a new name for a new type of union.

And there is nothing ignorant about it. [/B]

No.

What MacNStein suggested amounts to CHANGING the LEGAL STATUS'S NAME to "civil union", and removing "marriage" entirely from governmental jurisdiction - into the realm of religion.

-s*

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Actually I am ALL for giving gays the same rights as married people. I however think the federal government needs to stay out of it and leave it up to separate states. Like it's SUPPOSED to be.

Hey, I am not allowed to marry a man either. So it does.

They don't want EQUAL rights. They want rights ADDED.

But even then I am for them ADDING rights.

They need to find another word to call it though, Marriage is already taken. [/B]

OK. How about everybody gets a civil union from the state and only those who have a second religious ceremony can have a marriage, if their religion permits it? That way everybody, gay and straight, has the same government sanction.

Would that fly with you? Or do you want same-sex unions called something different to identify them as different?